Why Is Israel So Heartbroken Over Iran Nuclear Deal?

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, denounced the nuclear deal with Iran as a "historic mistake" after he lost the battle against easing the sanctions, currently imposed on Iran to control its nuclear program. He also added that "today the world has become a much more dangerous place."

But unlike Israel, Obama's administration and the European Union seem to be so enthusiastic over the temporary deal. U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, said on CNN: "I believe that from this day - for the next six months - Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday."

Despite these contradictory statements, president Obama and the U.S. Secretary of State have declared on separate occasions that Israel and the U.S. follow the same goal: "to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon." So, why is the Israeli government so unhappy over the deal while the U.S. shows great interest in reaching a permanent deal with Iran? The answer has more to do with Israel's foreign policy rather than Iran's nuclear program or the deal itself.

The temporary deal, better called an interim agreement before the final deal, is an initial, six-month deal, that according to White House, includes "substantial limitations that will help prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon." The deal mandates Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical equipment required to do that, but gives Iran the right to enrich uranium up to 5%, necessary for use in nuclear power plants and well below bomb-grade (90%). On the other hand, Iran will be required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, all in exchange for lifting some sanctions while a more formal agreement is worked out.

Although the current interim agreement between P5+1 and Iran is only a first step, the regional and international markets have responded positively to it and Israeli stock prices rose to a record high, in response to the deal. This initial deal will also help increase the stability in the Middle East,

If constructive negotiations continue through the next six months and a final agreement with a fail safe mechanism, as stated by Barak Obama, is reached, then a non-nuclear Iran will not be such a threat to Israel. And that is exactly what worries the Israeli government who has already missed his archenemy.

Israel is currently involved in an old open conflict with Palestine, has a vast military presence in Occupied Palestinian Territories, was involved in the 33-Day war with the neighboring Lebanon in 2006, and recently bombed strategic targets in Syria which is wrapped in civil war. Most of these military actions have been justified in the international community and the press by the image of an Israel threatened by Palestinian Intifada, Lebanese Hezbollah and Syrian Regime both believed to be backed by Islamic Republic of Iran.

But with palestinian Intifada diminished into a symbolic resistance rather than a real threat to Israel; Lebanon caught in between the domestic sectarian conflicts and a sectarian civil war in Syria which is reaching Lebanese borders; and the Syrian regime more concerned about its own existence than the regional clash of powers in the Middle East, the menace of a nuclear Iran was the best scapegoat to justify Israel's military moves in the Middle East. But Obama's administration and Rouhani's government are bound to take that last excuse away from Netanyahu. Probably, that's why he insists that despite all the international observations Iran will continue his nuclear program towards producing a nuclear weapon, as if the whole world is mistaken over the deal with Iran.

In fact, the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, and current iranian government are the worst choices for Israel's foreign policy. Rouhani tries to calm the ever-rising tension in the Middle East unlike his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iranian president during his visit to New York, to attend the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, even accepted and condemned Holocaust.

In current situation, the last thing the Israeli government needs is an Iranian president who talks peace, no matter for real or not. The recent Israeli-Iranian relationship can be compared to a downgraded version of U.S.A and U.S.S.R relations during the Cold War, and much like Cold War, sooner or later the tension will reduce as none really wants to move towards a direct confrontation, although they have been involved in a proxy war in Lebanon. But the big question, not only for Netanyahu but also for the Iranian Supreme Leader, remains: Once the threat of an archenemy fades away, what are they going to hang on to in order to justify their hostile actions inside and outside their borders?

Editor-in-chief

Touraj Jafarieh, co-founder of Open Society, is a journalist specialized in multimedia communications, with extensive experience on blogs, social networks and web journalism. He has several years of experience, working with newspapers, news agencies, radio and television. Lately he has been focusing on "The phenomenon of blogging and freedom of expression: The paradigmatic case of Iran".

Education

Ph.D. in Spanish Language and its Literatures, M.Sc. in Professional Multimedia Journalism, M.A. in Contemporary Literature, all at Complutense University of Madrid, B.A. in Spanish Philology at Allameh Tabatabai University of Tehran

Languages

English, Spanish, French, Persian

Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Follow Us

Get Published

+ Archives

Legal Note

opensocietyoline.com includes links to both internal and external websites which are selected to be editorially relevant to the content they are linking from. Open Society Online cannot be held responsible for the content of external links, third party content that is published on the website or cited references.